Forum menu
martinhutch - Member"Most Christians do not go around forcing their views on other people", would have worked better for Farron.
Yup. Or, just don't say anything like that, make it personal. "Don't worry about my christianity because I'm dead christian and we're really lovely" isn't going to address anyone's concerns.
Christians can't enforce their views on LGBT etc on anyone. The most they can do is tut loudly or have a passive aggressive prayer meeting nearby.
Or become a politician
Mefty - Im no bigot. find one post of mine that contains any bigoted views
Insulting someone like you just have to me shows you have lost the arguement
Christians are constantly trying to force their views on people and I gave you some good examples. Now how about the prayer vigils outside marie stopes clinics?
Why? It is a pretty fundamental Christian viewpoint, which illustrates perfectly why his views are pretty irrelevant when it comes to his "professional" life.
This.
I'm pretty sure I've done all kinds of things that a devout Christian would regard as a sin. Wouldn't stop me voting for a Christian. FFS, isn't eating shellfish a sin as well? Most things that are sins are a bit more fun *because* they are sins. 😀
...and if people don't want a Christian in No10 because Christians are bigots, does that mean the wouldn't want a devout Muslim in No10 for the same reason?
Mefty - Im no bigot. find one post of mine that contains any bigoted views
So you would be happy with a devout Muslim in No10?
If so why wouldn't you be happy with a devout Christian?
I'm assuming you'd be happy with one faith, but not the other. Even if you wouldn't accept either faith you're sounding a bit bigoted.
If so why wouldn't you be happy with a devout Christian?
Because of what the last one did - Blair.
I wouldn't want any devout person of any faith as prime minister.
OOB - I did not say all christians are bigots. I know some that are not. However Farron is a bigot with his homophobic views
I wouldn't want any devout person of any faith as prime minister.
...but you're not a bigot!
Nope I am not. I have perfectly good and valid reasons for this. I want my prime minister to be a rational person who believes in science.
Now explain why my not wanting a devout person as my prime minister makes me a bigot?
big·ot (b?g??t)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
How you two view that definition I'll leave to your own pissing contests
Farron is a bigot with his homophobic views
Is he? How is he being intolerant of gay people?
In fact, what he seems to have said is very much the opposite of intolerance, whatever his personal religious beliefs on homosexuality are.
"devout" is the watchword here. When it's applied to Muslims it's often replaced with "fundamentalist" or "fanatic". I have no problem with people who have "faith" in positions of power. The problems start when you add a strong qualifier such as "devout". I've walked to Compostelle twice (and then some) but I'm not about to let any religious doctrine compromise my views as a humanist and geologist.
+1 Ninfan.
How you two view that definition I'll leave to your own pissing contests
You're intolerant of people who engage in pissing contests? Does that mean TJ and I can't be Prime Minister? 🙁
"devout" is the watchword here. When it's applied to Muslims it's often replaced with "fundamentalist" or "fanatic"
Seems to me that 'devout' refers to the commitment and devotion to the principles of your religion you exercise in your own life
'Fundamentalist' is expecting, harrying, coercing and/or forcing others to abide by the principles of your religion in their lives
Ninfan - he believes homosexuality is a sin.
Do you want people who believe in heaven choosing whether the country goes to war?
Discuss
How is he being intolerant of gay people?
I don't see it myself, either.
If you asked him, "Do you think drinking yourself stupid and shagging a fat bird you don't know is a sin" he'd probably have to admit he thought it was, and loads of people have done that.
He's not going to set up concentration camps for drunken shaggers, and I doubt many drunken shaggers would take offence at him considering it a sin.
By that definition Ninfan Farron is a fundamentalist. so lets just wap devout then for fundamentalist.
Personally I have no problem with it; it's totally possible to separate your beliefs from your actions, or to rationalise them, especially when working as part of a larger group, and I'm sure Farron's capable of that. It'd be a small vote-loser but it didn't have to be a critical one. There's lots of people of faith in government.
But he's making a total arse of the question, over and over. In a similar vein he genuinely thought it was a good idea to accuse Labour of being "Tory enablers". The leader of the Lib Dems.
Wow this thread has got off topic.
Discussing whether Farron's views make him an acceptable choice as a prime minister is largely academic. It's not going to happen any time soon!
I'm far more impressed by the fact that Farron is a Christian but hasn't let his personal views influence the policies of his party. That's a huge plus in my eyes and a credit to both Farron and the Lib Dems.
He's making a total arse of the question, over and over,
That's what staggers me. If he simply said "I don't think homosexuality is a sin" it would be the smallest of smallest white lies. Just say that.
Of if he really can't bring himself to say that just say: "Strict interpretation of the scriptures says Homosexuality (along with eating shellfish) is a sin, I think that's a bit harsh and don't really buy into it.".
It really doesn't seem a tricky issue to kill stone dead.
/\/\ wot Northwind said
Ninfan - he believes homosexuality is a sin.
Well, he appears to have said the opposite, it's just that he refused to be drawn in to going through a list of his personal beliefs in a series on interviews, as is right. However even if he did, so what? tTat's a belief he is fully entitled to, because it's a free world and as a society we dont believe in thought crime.
That doesn't amount to intolerance, just a personal belief - He hasn't said anything suggesting in any way that people should be castigated, threatened, ostracised or punished for being gay, which would.
By that definition Ninfan Farron is a fundamentalist. so lets just wap devout then for fundamentalist.
Looks like you're making stuff up again.
He's making a total arse of the question, over and over,
I think he just sees where it naturally ends up, answer the first question, the follow up is "is this a sin too then" and so on ad infinitum.
He should have learned from Father Jack:
Discussing whether Farron's views make him an acceptable choice as a prime minister is largely academic. It's not going to happen any time soon!
I was wondering if the liberals came out firmly "Retract Art 50 & remain" and if every single Remainer voted Liberal, could they mathematically be the biggest party?
You're intolerant of people who engage in pissing contests? Does that mean TJ and I can't be Prime Minister?
No, and there'll be no pudding either
Well, he appears to have said the opposite, it's just that he refused to be drawn in to going through a list of his personal beliefs in a series on interviews, as is right.
The fact he's voted for gay marriage suggests he doesn't have a massive problem with it. Unless he's trying to spoil Gay sex by letting them get married!
However even if he did, so what? tTat's a belief he is fully entitled to, because it's a free world and as a society we dont believe in thought crime.
Exactly.
I think lane hogging is a sin. I'm not going to start hanging lane hoggers. (...but that's a bad example because I would if I was PM.)
Has anyone ever asked Sadiq Khan if he thinks homosexuality is a sin?
Racist!
It's an odd day when A) ninfan is defending the LibDems and B) I find myself agreeing with him! 😯
Would be an interesting question CFH
Last point on Farron - he has consistently voted against or abstained on many issues affecting womens and gay rights where his fundamental religious views are at odds with his own party.
He voted for compulsory counselling for women facing abortions. He votd for a compulsory " cooling off" period for women seeking abortions
He voted for allowing registrars to be able to refuse to officiate at gay weddings. He voted for there to be no sanction for registars who refuse to officiate at gay weddings
Long record of abstensions as well where his fundamentalist views clash with his parties policy - a cynical ploy so he wouldn't have to be seen for the bigot he is
ninfan is defending the LibDems
I know this isn't a common viewpoint on STW but I think Ninfan is usually defending sanity, and he usually posts actual links to facts to make his point whereas is detractors usually just go straight for the Ad Hom.
Has anyone ever asked Sadiq Khan if he thinks homosexuality is a sin?
How many Gay Pride marches has Farron been on?
[img] 
[/img]
He voted for compulsory counselling for women facing abortions. He votd for a compulsory " cooling off" period for women seeking abortions
How extreme!
That's what staggers me. If he simply said "I don't think homosexuality is a sin" it would be the smallest of smallest white lies. Just say that.Of if he really can't bring himself to say that just say: "Strict interpretation of the scriptures says Homosexuality (along with eating shellfish) is a sin, I think that's a bit harsh and don't really buy into it.".
It really doesn't seem a tricky issue to kill stone dead.
Ahh, he has:
Tory MP Nigel Evans, who is gay, asked Mr Farron whether he thought being gay was a sin. He replied: ‘I do not.'
Damn you TJ, you've got me agreeing with ninfan on a politics thread!
However:
[quote=outofbreath ]I know this isn't a common viewpoint on STW but I think Ninfan is usually defending sanity, and he usually posts actual links to facts to make his point whereas is detractors usually just go straight for the Ad Hom.
It's not a common viewpoint because it's fundamentally untrue. He is clearly quite sane and intelligent and sometimes comes out with astute observations like he has here (get him on a non-politics thread, particularly one about access and he posts some really useful stuff). However find me a post of his on the Trump thread where he's [s]not trolling[/s] defending sanity. He gets "ad hommed" on there because people are tired of his posting style and it's "oh look, ninfan's trolling again".
Tory MP Nigel Evans, who is gay, asked Mr Farron whether he thought being gay was a sin. He replied: ‘I do not.'
What a nasty fundamentalist.
😐
Last point on Farron - he has consistently voted against or abstained on many issues affecting womens and gay rights where his fundamental religious views are at odds with his own party.
Were they mainly what is commonly referred to in parliament as 'matters of conscience' rather than under the party whip?
He voted for compulsory counselling for women facing abortions.
Would that be a bad thing? I know a couple of ladies who have discussed having an abortion and both found the whole thing a pretty traumatic experience.
He votd for a compulsory " cooling off" period for women seeking abortions
Again, is this a bad idea?
He voted for allowing registrars to be able to refuse to officiate at gay weddings.
He voted to allow someone to exercise their own personal belief? The Bastard! Next thing he'll be round making us all eat heterosexual wedding cake.
He voted for there to be no sanction for registars who refuse to officiate at gay weddings
Should doctors be struck off for refusing to sign off abortions too?
Long record of abstensions as well where his fundamentalist views clash with his parties policy - a cynical ploy so he wouldn't have to be seen for the bigot he is
Hmm, I can think of someone else with a long record of 'fundamentalist' views that clash with his parties policy... should Jezza be barred from leadership of the LP?
Tory MP Nigel Evans, who is gay, asked Mr Farron whether he thought being gay was a sin. He replied: ‘I do not.'
Nigel Evans' supplementary question should have been "What if I'm wearing my sister in law's knickers with a Cucumber in my ****?"
😀
Anything that means women have to wait longer for an abortion is a bad thing IMO especially as there are time limits. No cooling off period and abortion on demand up to a safe date IMO. No counseling unless requested. If you refuse to officiate at a gay (civil) marriage you lose your job.
Tory MP Nigel Evans, who is gay, asked Mr Farron whether he thought being gay was a sin. He replied: ‘I do not.'
(Caveat - these are not my views but this is what I've learnt from evangelicals at uni many moons ago)
The majority of evangelical Christians do not consider being gay (or as they prefer to call it, same-sex attracted) sinful in itself, rather they see it as a reflection of human brokenness; but the practicing of homosexuality is generally understood to be sinful - along with all sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage.
So the only option is to remain celibate or hope somehow that the orientation changes over time.
Anything that means women have to wait longer for an abortion is a bad thing IMO
I've got a friend with a son with Downs. He's a cracking lad and he and they have a great life.
They're quite open that they'd decided to have a abortion but the nature of the test they had made them wait a bit (they thought a miscarriage might just happen.)
In that time they changed their minds and have never looked back.
I have a friend who was under a great deal of pressure from a boyfriend to have an abortion. I suspect with counselling she'd have made a different decision. She certainly regrets the abortion now.
As long as there isn't a pressing cut off point approaching I think an appropriate delay [1] to think it over and counselling are a good thing.
Whether they should be required by law is a different question....
[1] I've no idea what that delay might be.
Would that be a bad thing? I know a couple of ladies who have discussed having an abortion and both found the whole thing a pretty traumatic experience.
Yes, because you're making the assumption that someone is pshycologically damaged - and/or potentially making them feel threatened by having shrinks examine them.
Medicine has a long and sordid history of being used as a tool to control women.
You idiot.
I have a friend who was under a great deal of pressure from a boyfriend to have an abortion. I suspect with counselling she'd have made a different decision. She certainly regrets the abortion now.
Again, you don't think compulsory counselling is a form of pressure?
counselling is a good idea. compulsory counselling is simply wrong. Insisting on a cooling off period is wrong.
These positions that Farron has adopted on abortion is straight from the textbook of anti abortion activists. Its intent is to try to prevent women from having abortions by putting further barriers in their way.
His voting positions on this are at odds with his parties long standing positions so show that indeed he will put his personal fundamentalist religious beliefs above party policy